Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29866766›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

Addressing the challenges of knowledge co-production in quality improvement: learning from the implementation of the researcher-in-residence model.

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Laura Eyre, Helen Baxter, Helen Cramer, Bethan George, Lesley Wye, Naomi J Fulop, Martin Utley, Natasha Phillips, Peter Brindle and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Can the Development of Orphan Drugs Include Wider Patient Engagement? A Citizens' Jury to Explore a Promissory Notion.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Laura EyrePrimary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Helen BaxterCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Helen CramerCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bethan GeorgeTower Hamlets GP Care Group, London, UK.
Lesley WyeCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Martin UtleyClinical Operational Research Unit, UCL, London, UK.
Natasha PhillipsUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Peter BrindleAvon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Bristol, UK.
Martin MarshallPrimary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health KMRF-2013-02-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of knowledge co-production is used in health services research to describe partnerships (which can involve researchers, practitioners, managers, commissioners or service users) with the purpose of creating, sharing and negotiating different knowledge types used to make improvements in health services. Several knowledge co-production models have been proposed to date, some involving intermediary roles. This paper explores one such model, researchers-in-residence (also known as 'embedded researchers').In this model, researchers work inside healthcare organisations, operating as staff members while also maintaining an affiliation with academic institutions. As part of the local team, researchers negotiate the meaning and use of research-based knowledge to co-produce knowledge, which is sensitive to the local context. Even though this model is spreading and appears to have potential for using co-produced knowledge to make changes in practice, a number of challenges with its use are emerging. These include challenges experienced by the researchers in embedding themselves within the practice environment, preserving a clear focus within their host organisations and maintaining academic professional identity.In this paper, we provide an exploration of these challenges by examining three independent case studies implemented in the UK, each of which attempted to co-produce relevant research projects to improve the quality of care. We explore how these played out in practice and the strategies used by the researchers-in-residence to address them. In describing and analysing these strategies, we hope that participatory approaches to knowledge co-production can be used more effectively in the future.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorQuality ImprovementResearch PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHumansOrganizational Case StudiesTranslational Research, Biomedicalevaluation methodologyhealth services researchquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID29866766
PMCPMC6373423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.